If analogies are going to be made to the telephony industry,
directories are not the right comparison. People should
take a look at the toll-free segment. There are the
equivalents of TLDs (800, 888, and other area codes). And
(although I haven't looked recently, I think) there is a single
registry. However, that registry is a contractor who does not
have intellectual property rights to the data. Rather, the
contractor is employed by the industry to maintain the data
base.
Marty
Speaking for myself.
At 05:26 PM 7/23/99 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Karl,
>
>Very good document, indeed.
>
>Let me state my POV on subject #2 (I have objections also on #1, but as this
>has been discussed several times, all readers know where our positions
>differ, and there's no need to bore them with another thread).
>
>I have nothing in principle against multiple roots, I just fail to
>understand how this could be a better system than a common root under public
>trust.
>I find the analogy with the phone system (as you present it) not fully
>applicable, as the phone number is a "key" in the system, and therefore
>unique due to the way that the system is built, while the domain name is an
>"attribute" of the unique key (the IP address), and therefore could be
>duplicated.
>The problem comes from the fact that while you use the "key" in the former
>system (you call the phone number) you currently use the "attribute" in the
>latter (you type in the domain name, not the address).
>
>The way I see it, either you enforce uniqueness of the TLD across the roots
>(and therefore you have a logically unique root which is the logical union
>of the roots), or you may well have the TLD resolving differently in two
>different roots. In other words, if you have two systems serving .web (IOD
>and CORE ?), you may have two different instances of
>"i_am_the_best_on_the.web", if one belongs to a registrant with IOD, the
>other with CORE.
>If I understand your position, you claim that the market will sort out who
>will survive, in the sense that service providers will point to the one that
>will offer more added value (BTW: to them, not necessarily to the end user).
>
>This means that you will find the one or the other according to how your
>system is set.
>It is like saying (in the telephone system analogy) that by calling +1 831
>423 8585 you may reach "cavebear" or a subscriber to a different provider,
>according to how your telephone is set. This is far worse that being listed
>in one or the other directory. For instance, end users could get different
>two directories, and call numbers referenced in both without any change in
>the setting of the telephone. This is not true in the ISP-chosen root system
>(unless you don't manipulate your own computer, which very few people will
>do).
>
>Of course, as E-Commerce grows, companies are investing more and more in
>this new tool, and the last thing that they want is to have their efforts
>jeopardized by the dependency from a setup. And this will be independent
>from their performance, but the risk factor is related to the performance
>(as perceived by the service providers) of the Registry they belong to. Up
>to the point that they may need to change Registry, and therefore often even
>domain name, if their first choice is already taken in the other Registry.
>I believe that commercial organizations see this as a nightmare.
>BTW, this is the reason why commercial interests are supporting ICANN: they
>have nothing to do with CORE, to whom they are completely incorrelated, but
>just feel that between the ethics of holding closed meetings and the
>financial risk involved with limited visibility on the Net they consistenly
>choose the lesser evil.
>
>All what we need, as a first step, is more competition (i.e. new TLDs,
>allocated to different players), not to rethink the whole thing over again,
>or go into unexplored territory (where what is unexplored is not the
>technical feasibility of the multiple roots, which is proven, but its
>effectiveness on large scale numbers).
>
>I will be glad to stand corrected if I missed something of the point you
>make and/or if you find a hole in my argumentation, as not only I am not a
>lawyer, but I'm not a guru of the IP addressing either ;>).
>
>Best regards
>Roberto
>
>P.S.: I agree with you on point #3
>
>
>
